Assembly Line in Scientific Labs: Quality or Quantity to Evaluate Researchers’ Work? A Critical Overview on Current Huge Overproduction of Scientific Articles and its Sociocultural Consequences
Main Article Content
Abstract
Abstract
The mission of scientific research is currently contaminated with distortions that undermine its credibility and compromise its fruitfulness. The main question is: are research projects, fundraising, innovation, articles, and scientific findings interrelated? Does innovation and discovery paths need the frenzy of activities that leads to the huge overproduction of scientific articles? Or are we simply witnessing one of the worst consequences of globalisation, with desperate researchers forced to publish for survival rather than to pursue the genuine advance of knowledge? This article examines the environment of scientific research with its current rules, operating mechanisms, and practices. The overproduction of scientific articles is examined in light of the infinite growth paradigm, which was invented by economists and politicians to ensure big business for some large multinational enterprises. No natural phenomenon shows a monotonically increasing trend. The hyper-proliferation of scientific articles is, in fact, analysed from a biological perspective as a pathological phenomenon comparable to cellular hyper-proliferation. The huge overproduction of scientific articles is inserted in a general framework of a tendency towards hypertrophy, which can also be seen in the dramatic increase in the incidence of oncological pathologies worldwide. The anomalies discussed in relation to scientific misconduct include: i) a sensationally high and frenetic production of scientific articles, ii) a wide mass of scientific studies of little relevance that seem to respond as a priority to the well-known publish or perish blackmail; iii) the poorly useful role of peer review process, iv) incredible but proven cases of plagiarism and fraud, v) the improper use of bibliometric indexes to manage funding, recruitments, remunerations, and careers. It is argued that what scientific research bodies and universities need is an ethical work environment inspired by ideals of plurality, solidarity, and eclecticism. Planning the degrowth of human activities, in order to reprogram social regulation, is to be considered inevitable in view of overcoming the absurd infinite growth paradigm and its noxious consequences and embracing cooperation instead of competition.
Downloads
Article Details
Copyright (c) 2024 Prenesti E.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Licensing and protecting the author rights is the central aim and core of the publishing business. Peertechz dedicates itself in making it easier for people to share and build upon the work of others while maintaining consistency with the rules of copyright. Peertechz licensing terms are formulated to facilitate reuse of the manuscripts published in journals to take maximum advantage of Open Access publication and for the purpose of disseminating knowledge.
We support 'libre' open access, which defines Open Access in true terms as free of charge online access along with usage rights. The usage rights are granted through the use of specific Creative Commons license.
Peertechz accomplice with- [CC BY 4.0]
Explanation
'CC' stands for Creative Commons license. 'BY' symbolizes that users have provided attribution to the creator that the published manuscripts can be used or shared. This license allows for redistribution, commercial and non-commercial, as long as it is passed along unchanged and in whole, with credit to the author.
Please take in notification that Creative Commons user licenses are non-revocable. We recommend authors to check if their funding body requires a specific license.
With this license, the authors are allowed that after publishing with Peertechz, they can share their research by posting a free draft copy of their article to any repository or website.
'CC BY' license observance:
|
License Name |
Permission to read and download |
Permission to display in a repository |
Permission to translate |
Commercial uses of manuscript |
|
CC BY 4.0 |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
The authors please note that Creative Commons license is focused on making creative works available for discovery and reuse. Creative Commons licenses provide an alternative to standard copyrights, allowing authors to specify ways that their works can be used without having to grant permission for each individual request. Others who want to reserve all of their rights under copyright law should not use CC licenses.
Standen A. Science is a Sacred Cow. New York: E. P. Dutton; 1950.
Taylor FW. The Principles of Scientific Management. New York, NY, USA and London, UK: Harper & Brothers; 1911. Available from: https://openlibrary.org/books/OL7244638M/The_Principles_of_Scientific_Management
Carafoli E. Scientific misconduct: the dark side of science. Today’s Topics in Sciences. 2015;26:369-382. Available from: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12210-015-0415-4
Pacchioni G. The Overproduction of Truth: Passion, Competition, and Integrity in Modern Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2018. Available from: https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-overproduction-of-truth-9780198799887?cc=in&lang=en&
Chu JSG, Evans JA. Slowed canonical progress in large fields of science. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2021;118(41):1-5. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2021636118
Thelwall M, Sud P. Scopus 1900–2020: Growth in articles, abstracts, countries, fields, and journals. Quantitative Science Studies. 2022;3(1):37-50. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00177
Landhuis E. Information overload. How to manage the research-paper deluge? Blogs, colleagues and social media can all help. Nature. 2016;535:457-458. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1038/nj7612-457a
Larsen PO, von Ins M. The rate of growth in scientific publication and the decline in coverage provided by Science Citation Index. Scientometrics. 2010;84:575-603. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-010-0202-z
Fanelli D. How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PLoS One. 2009;4(5):e5738. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0005738
Schmelzer M. The growth paradigm: History, hegemony, and the contested making of economic growthmanship. Ecol Econ. 2015;118:262-271. Available from: https://econpapers.repec.org/article/eeeecolec/v_3a118_3ay_3a2015_3ai_3ac_3ap_3a262-271.htm
Reich ES. Cancer trial errors revealed. Nature. 2011;469:139-140. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1038/469139a
Altman DG. The scandal of poor medical research. BMJ. 1994;308:283-284. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.308.6924.283
World Cancer Report 2014. Stewart BW, Wild CP, editors. Lyon: International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC); 2014. Available from: https://publications.iarc.fr/Non-Series-Publications/World-Cancer-Reports/World-Cancer-Report-2014
Prenesti E. Think Lean! Discover and Develop Your Lean Mindset. Value, Boost, Promote and Affirm Yourself. La Bussola Editore; 2022.
Eckerling A, Ricon-Becker I, Sorski L, Sandbank E, Ben-Eliyahu S. Stress and cancer: mechanisms, significance and future directions. Nat Rev Cancer. 2021;21(12):767-785. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41568-021-00395-5
Ma Y, Kroemer G. The cancer-immune dialogue in the context of stress. Nat Rev Immunol. 2024;24:264-281. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41577-023-00949-8
Chida Y, Hamer M, Wardle J, Steptoe A. Do stress-related psychosocial factors contribute to cancer incidence and survival? Nat Clin Pract Oncol. 2008;5:466-475. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1038/ncponc1134
Smith P. Killing the Spirit: Higher Education in America. New York: Penguin Books; 1990. Available from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED334937
Talbott S. The Cortisol Connection: Why Stress Makes You Fat and Ruins Your Health and What You Can Do About It. Alameda, CA: Hunter House; 2007:265. Available from: https://books.google.co.in/books/about/The_Cortisol_Connection.html?id=D8VE11Zcp74C&redir_esc=y
Ekbom A, Helmick C, Zack M, Adami HO. Ulcerative colitis and colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med. 1990;323:1228-1233. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm199011013231802
Eaden JA, Abrams KR, Mayberry JF. The risk of colorectal cancer in ulcerative colitis: a meta-analysis. Gut. 2001;48:526-535. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1136/gut.48.4.526
Ferguson C, Marcus A, Oransky I. The peer-review scam. Nature. 2014;515:480-482. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1038/515480a
Gillies D. Why research assessment exercises are a bad thing. Post-autistic economics review. 2006;37:2-9. Available from: https://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue37/Gillies37.htm
Smith R. Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals. J R Soc Med. 2006;99:178-182. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1258/jrsm.99.4.178
Ioannidis JPA. Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med. 2005;2(8):e124. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
Bohannon J. Who’s afraid of peer review? Science. 2013;342:60-65. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.2013.342.6154.342_60
Ernst RR. The follies of citation indices and academic ranking lists: A brief commentary to ‘Bibliometrics as weapons of mass citation’. Chimia. 2010;64:90. Available from: https://doi.org/10.2533/chimia.2010.90
Markowitz DM, Hancock JT. Linguistic traces of a scientific fraud: The case of Diederik Stapel. PLoS One. 2014;9(8):e105937. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0105937
Steen RG, Casadevall A, Fang FC. Why has the number of scientific retractions increased? PLoS One. 2013;8(7):e68397. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0068397
Rosenthal R, Rubin DB. A simple, general purpose display of magnitude of experimental effect. J Educ Psychol. 1982;74:166-169. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.74.2.166
Popper KR. Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. London: Routledge Classics; 1963.
Seglen PO. Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. BMJ. 1997;314:498-502. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.314.7079.497
Popper KR, as quoted by Gopnik A. Writing about his meeting with Karl Popper at home, in “The Porcupine: A Pilgrimage to Popper.” The New Yorker. 2002.
Popper KR. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London: Hutchison of London; 1959.
Dweck CS. Mindset: The New Psychology of Success. New York: Ballantine Books; 2008. Available from: https://www.scirp.org/reference/referencespapers?referenceid=1338957
Kuhn TS. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 2012.
Poincaré JH. Science and Hypothesis. London: W. Scott; 1905.